Added: 3 years ago
From: StefPhoenixOoORising
Views: 74,292
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (302)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I kind of really disagree with the choice to have the Phantom scarred by acid. I love the idea of the disfigured Phantom shunned by society who never loved him. Claude Raines Phantom has already kind of made niches for himself and he's done bad things already before being injured

  • I love Claude. He's a genious. Not the best phantom, but definitely one of the better ones. CLAUDE, I LOVE YOU.

  • @aMgVbros4aetas ah. I see. :)

  • I hate how he keeps on calling her child and little one...super weird.

  • Lon Chaney was good but I think Claude Rains had a great voice for the phantom and, sense the original was a silent movie I think Claude Rains was better

  • FOR THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP COMMENTING ON MY COMMENT FROM A WHILE AGO,

    I MENT HOW CAN A BULLET BRING DOWN AN ENTIRE STABLE CAVE! NOT HIS DAMN FACE!

    retards.

  • agrnb98

    Actually, Lon Chaney did the makeup for the phantom's disfigurement. One of the things that Chaney was famous for was doing all his own makeup. I thought this was pretty cool.

  • Cripes, Claude is creepy in this... but wayyyyy more evil in "Deception".

  • LON CHANEY LOOKED MORE LIKE A MONSTER, LIKE THE WAY HE PLAYED QUASIMODO. THIS PHANTOM LOOKS TOO FAKE.

  • @veganisextremelygood Different ways of portraying the story. The Phantom's more human here.

  • I have sheet music of Edward Ward's "'Lullaby of the Bells' Piano Concerto", both as a piano with vocals version and as a solo piano version. Please send me a message if you would like the sheet music. - Peter

  • @PeterAndres18 A gorgeous piece. Truly one of my most favorite film compositions!

  • I always have thought it should ended with the shot of the mask and the violin instead of that stupid scene that comes afterwards.

  • This is strictly my opinion. This is my favorite Phantom! It introduced me to the Phantom of the Opera. I first watched it when I was about 5 and was actually scared by seeing the Phantom's face. For about 3 years I didnt watch it again. I watched the Lon Chaney version about a year after and was not scared. Lon Chaney was good but I was never really hooked on silent films (no disrespect to those who do). I finally watched this version again and love it! Claude Rains is one of my favorite actors

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • great production design!

  • For all its flaws, I think that this film has one redeeming factor: Claude Rains. He was such a great character actor during his reign but often played supporting actor rather than leading man. This was a nice change for him. Yes, he was a bit little to pull off the Phantom physically, but his voice is like melted chocolate. I can't help but be a little head-over-heels.

  • like bullets are gonna knock down walls...

  • You love it in here......when you're used to the dark XD

  • the phantom is creepy in this one

  • Christine is dumb here...

  • @SuperDanishPrincess Christine is always dumb XD

  • Lon Chaney's bizarre and cadaverous makeup will never be matched, but Rains is indeed a fine phantom. Even masked, he's more expressive than anyone else in the cast, and he's far more sympathetic than Chaney (which inevitably reduces the horror). No matter what version it is, people get hooked on this material--the chandelier and the unmasking, and this one has the advantage of excellent music. Herbert Lom was very fine in his version as well, but the movie he was in was unworthy of him.

  • Comment removed

  • i like this 1943 version but if i had to choose the best phantom between Lon Chaney and Claude Rains i would choose Lon Chaney. His acting is magnificent and whoever did his makeup for the unmasking scene thumbs up. his face scared the crap out of me. Claude Rains face i wasn't really scared to. but i like both of them because they are wonderful. but i like this version because people are actually talking in this one. if the 1929 version had the people talking i'd be more happy

  • @agrnb98 How many have you seen? I think Herbert Lom definitely comes on third place.

  • @agrnb98 Lon Chaney did his own makeup :)

  • @agrnb98 the one with lon chaney came out in 1925, Just saying

  • @ZodiacBryan Yes but the original print is pretty rare and most releases are originally sourced from the 1929 re-release.

  • @StefPhoenixOoORising i dont think so cuz in 1929 they added some voice over work for some of the scene's and i never seen the one where they talk

  • @agrnb98 Pertaining to his make up, Lon Chaney did it himself. He did all of his make up in his movies and still today his techniques remain a secret. And also, I hadn't realized the 1925 version was so rare! I found it at this random book/video store for ten dollars. It was almost fate, I was waiting for the bus and just happened to look in the window where it was and they were just about to close so I ran in and grabbed it. <3 And I wholeheartedly agree. Chaney is the better of the two.

  • @agrnb98 Did you know that Lon Chaney did his own makeup? So the horrific, skull-like face of the Phantom from 1925 was Chaney's own idea! Well, of course it takes inspiration from the original book, but still! Chaney was indeed a genius makeup artist, not to mention one of the greatest actors of the silent cinema, if not THE greatest. :)

  • @agrnb98 Lon Chaney did his own make up. He wrapped piano wire around his head to get his face and nose to look the way they did. He was truly a very talented man! :)

  • Comment removed

  • @agrnb98 Lon Chaney did his makeup. He did it all the time.

  • its the first time I've seen this version. the Phantom is depicted quite nearly the same way Leroux depicted him in the book - insane yet brilliant.

  • @arianlyre I agree that this version managed to capture and illuminate the aspect of that he really was brilliant. You should check out the Herbert Lom version in which he is depicted as the frustrated artist. I still prefer Lon Chaney over these two but Claude Rains and Herbert Lom are close on a shared second place.

    Both Lon Chaney and Claude Rains are among my all-time favorite actors and it is imperative that you check out their other films.

  • My Favorite Phantom yet!!!

  • It is 1943 and the color is that beautiful? WOOOW!!!

  • @bassie52 The richest, most beautiful Technicolor was between 1935 and 1955, with this 1943 version of "Phantom" being one of the most perfect examples. Another gorgeous, eye-popping example is Warner's 1938 extravaganza "The Adventures Of Robin Hood" w/Errol Flynn, Olivia DeHavilland, Basil Rathbone, and Claude Rains as Prince John. Also "Gone With The Wind" and Universal's unrelated "Phantom" follow up "The Climax" w/Boris Karloff and Susannah Foster.

  • lol must have been a powerful bullet or a really really old lair

  • @BurtonPoe I know, right? And they never get him to look right, either.

  • Okay,,,,

    horror Erik

    Romantic Erik

    Insane Erik

    Can't they find the right blend,,,,because of all the different movies I have seen

    I have not seen the Erik that supose to be in the book.

    

  • This is how I imagined Erik. Still a child on the inside, ignorant and naive, and completely convinced he can make Christine love him.

  • this one hasthe most beautiful christine. Suzanna Foster is beast!

  • 6:29 Sing! sound familiar? lol

  • Comment removed

  • Wait... He's an old man! This is horrible...

  • @aShLeYlUvSrOcK098 In the original draft of this screenplay, Erik is supposed to be Christine's father, who abandoned his family to pursue being a professional violinist. He pays for Christine's music lessons and lives in squalor as a way of trying to atone for abandoning his family. Universal Executives thought that trying to turn the Phantom story this way would confuse viewers, who might consider it incestuous. As such, they cut the crucial scene that actually explained all this.

  • @Chad48309 So your saying that... He was her father!?

  • @aShLeYlUvSrOcK098 Yep, there's a great commentary by a film historian on the DVD about it. He even has stills from the "lost scene" where Christine's aunt (the old woman who lets Raoul D'Aubert into Christine's room when she's practicing with Anatole Garron) speaks to Nelson Eddy's character about how Christine's father was really Erique.

    It was a pretty ballsy adaptation and a very well made horror film, on top of being a solid musical with great vocal artists of its time. Solid movie.

  • @Chad48309 Chad have you read the book? Erik (or the Phantom) is not her father. Her father died when she was 7. The Phantom gave her music lesons picking up EXACTLY where her father left off in his teachings about 10 years later and she gets her debut 3 months later.

  • @il0v3n3ji Yes, and the film goes out of its way to NOT follow the book. You can barely call it an adaptation. Maybe "inspired by" would be a good byline for the film. Again, if you watch the DVD special features, you see what the creators originally intended to do with this film. I'm not talking about the book, I'm talking about the loose 1943 Universal adaptation of the book into a pretty ballsy musical/horror crossover. There's a great commentary on the DVD, go watch it.

  • @aShLeYlUvSrOcK098 He's supposed to be. It's a factor about him that a lot of adaptations leave out, the vast age difference between him and Christine. Erik (the Phantom) isn't given an exact age in the original Gaston Leroux novel, but it's estimated that he's anywhere from his late 40s to early 60s, old enough to be Christine's father.

  • @jazzandmint

    Lol there weren't 2 rauls. One Raul and a Persian.

  • it looks like he has a T-bone stake on his face lol! and how dose a gunshot do that exactly?

  • @ChrisFiremender it wasnt a gunshot, fool!! a woman threw a pan of acid in his face

  • @Scar2401 I think he was referring to the bullett that makes the lair collapse!

  • @ChrisFiremender That's obviously a deep tissue scar which was caused by acid. How do you not know that??? Have you ever actually seen ANY version of "Phantom Of The Opera"?

  • damn...he's so delightfully insane

  • He scares me!

  • @TheGigigurl

    i would be so freaking scared haha

  • That mask makes him look cross eyed....

  • This is so creepy!

  • ok lets get somthing straight andrew loyd webber made this a musical it was a book in the 1800s before anything and no one realy sang then so dont keep criticizing this

  • The music isn't NEARLY as good as Andrew Loyd Webber, the singers SUCK compared to the 2004 actors...bad version

  • @troyauthor You sad, tasteless, culturally ignorant cretin. The fact that you favorably compare the obscene, laughable, hoarse caterwauling of Gerard Butler to the virtually divine voices of Nelson Eddy and Susannah Foster is ample proof of the aggressive decay of American taste and culture. Let me guess, you probably like rap, too....right? Please, refrain from reproducing.

  • This version is terrible. Only the 2004 version brings this story to life

  • @troyauthor I love the ALW stage show and while the 2004 film had beautiful sets and costumes, wonderfully lush music, and even a great leading couple (I loved Emmy and Patrick), it totally destroyed who Erik (the Phantom) is. He's supposed to be a corpse-faced man old enough to be Christine's father and should have a singing voice that could pass for an angel. And what did they give us instead? A pretty boy yowling like a cat out in the rain with the Sunburn of Doom as his "deformity".

  • @troyauthor I'm sorry that you have a need to display your bad taste in a public forum.

  • Comment removed

  • I love this song!!!! It gives me chills every time I listen to it

  • The guy is hot for an older dude, but wtf his face is like nothing and she made the OMG face! O.o hes quite insane, i like him! :D

  • @EmilijaEma You have good taste. Claude Rains was brilliant and charismatic, which made him very attractive, in addition to his speaking voice which was like having your ears rubbed with warm velvet. As far as the scar, I think it would be pretty nasty to be confronted with as a face to face surprise...even in real life. That's pretty much half a face of purple, black, and red nasty, open, acid burn.

  • So....being moderately disfigured turns a person into a homicidal maniac. Yay? A. He doesn't look so horrid. B. Why the heck is this enough to turn him into a vengeful wraith. Just checking, 'cause I've known people who had disfiguring accidents and none of them killed people with light fixtures.

  • Comment removed

  • @jfulbright He was already reaching a brink of insanity. 1. he lost his violin position at the Opera after 20 years! 2. he's behind on his rent and barely has enough money to support himself 3. he's obsessed with christine and used all his money to secretly pay for her voice lessons 4. his concerto being published was his last chance to make money and thinking the concerto was being stolen combined with everything else including being burnt with acid drove him insane

  • @jfulbright I really can't imagine how you could have missed ALL the factors besides the hideous, agonizing, traumatic acid burn that, I'm pretty sure, would turn most people bat shit crazy. Not to observant in general, are you?

  • with the mask on he looks like conan o'brain

  • This isn't my favorite version of Phantom, but I don't hate it either. Claude Rains has a great speaking voice, very lush. Suzanna Foster is just beautiful as Christine and quite similar to the way she's described in the book. She has a fantastic singing voice and makes Christine seem very sweet. However, Rains is tiny! It's hard to picture a 5'6 Phantom as being all that frightening. Plus, there was absolutely no need for two Raoul's. One is plenty.

  • is it just me or is this phantom Rains or whatever his name is, is he acting a little perv-ish?

  • @LexiBandGeek Not exactly because in the original 1943 script it was revealed that he is actually Christine's father

  • @LexiBandGeek His name is CLAUDE Rains....he was and is one of the greatest character actors ever in film....and, yes, the Phantom has the hots for Christine.....just like in every version.

  • This sucks i love andrew lloyd webbbbba!!! version but this is bulllll

  • @AANDERSONTV Your appalling grasp of spelling, punctuation, and grammar are ample clues as to why you would prefer "webbbbba's" version. You can go back to coloring now.

  • The only thing I really like about this is that Erik actually seems to be quite insane. He shouldn't be AS insane as he is portrayed here, but I think many of the other versions simply ignore the fact that Erik is a bit insane, which is what makes him Erik. He's brilliant, but insane.

  • @XxLittleLotte I know what you mean. Many versions (Charles Dance, ALW etc.) tend to excessively romanticize Erik and obfuscating his madness too much. Though I guess that's still better than turning him into a rat lover like Argento did...

  • @StefPhoenixOoORising please dont remind me of the "Ratsturbation" scene of Argento when wonderful Claude Rains is playing :D

  • @XxLittleLotte There's a fine line between brilliance and insanity.

  • one of the prettiest christines i have ever seen x

  • creeper. . .

  • soooooooo bad. ugh.  Phantom of the Opera is one of those movies that is either going to be a masterpiece or a complete failure.

  • @ilovetruffles99 A failure? Oh....you mean like the 2004 version.

  • @Nemesis7293 why are you responding to everyone in a defensive manner? do you want a fight?

  • @Nemesis7293 I didn't see the play before the movie, so I thought the movie was amazing, it actually inspired me to sing opera.

  • (7:36) Absolutley pathetic. No contest to Lon Chaney

  • wow that 1 gun shot did alot of damage...and thats a pretty advanced looking gun for the 1800's lol

  • this phantom sounds like a pedofile

  • i dont think his voice suits Erik...and the story has been altered wayyy too much.

  • he looks way scarier in the 1925 version

  • I LOVE Phantom in this...he adds a perfect new twist on the story, a sort of aristrocratic, dreamer aspect.

    "They've poisoned you against me...that's why you're afraid."

  • Claude Rains was hired for his velvety voice and from the success from the Invisible Man.

  • Comment removed

  • In this version it was intended but removed Erik is the father of Christine. The reason it was dropped, the producers were concern about incest implications. This was profitable Phantom of the Opera, it was in the plans to be a sequel but Claude Rains was not available.

  • ptdr, elle est plus grande que lui ^^

  • I adore the one with Lon Chaney, I don't know about this one.

  • I find the book the best overall. :) 

  • Oh Christine shut up! It's not even that bad! I could love him... But not as a lover but more like a friend or father... But serously? Why is she always so scared of a freakin face?

  • I never cared much for this version. Claude Rains is a fine enough actor, but it lacks mystery and depth and the deviations in the story are less than compelling. I'll always prefer the 1925 Chaney version overall.

  • I love this version, its quite endearing. &hearts;

    Thank you for putting it up here.

  • for some reason, unknownst to me, this was my favorite childhood movie. my grandma owned it on VHS and i would watch the entire film every time i went over to her house. eventually she let me borrow it, but i kind'a forgot to give it back. it's now resting in my basement somewhere :) This movie is actually well edited for its time and has pretty good actors.

  • This is one of my favorite Phantom adaptations along with the 2004 movie, the Yeston/Kopit movie, and Lon Chaney's.

    Claude Rains is such a terrific actor!

  • This Erik is old! Bleh

  • @livkivi: Erik's old in general! In the book he was like 60...

  • @livkivi And you're ignorant, Bleh! He's the correct age here. Read the book...if you can, and get a fucking clue.

  • @Nemesis7293 okay, seriously, I'm reading some of your answers, and I'm asking you to stop it, because you're being a bully. It's not nice. If you can't say it to someone's face, don't say it with the shield of a computer. Please.

  • @ilovetruffles99 plus, you're coming off as kind of an arrogant douchebag with too much time on his hands (because you're responding to every. single. one.) , you don't want that do you?

  • The 1925 unmasking is my favorite.

  • to be honest I love all versions of this wonderfull work of art, The Phantom of the Opera is timeless and to see all them from fresh eyes is.....a soothing. It may not be like the new version but thats what makes it Unique. haha i love the story, and glad that there are people who share the same heart and soul as Erik.

    cheers, O.G

  • I noticed that with most versions you have to put away the book. Leroux's Phantom is far worse looking than any of the Movie Phantoms and lets be true he's also a wee bit loony :-). I do not see why the above should have any less reasons to be watched than the others.

    I do admit though that Charles Dance is my fav Phantom of all closely followed by "hunk" Gerard :-)

    That does not mean that thne others are rubbish though!

    lol

  • lol the phantoms not even scary looking his face looks like a bad skin rash some cream would fix seen worse on real life tv programs

  • in all the versions iv seen the phantom has such a beautiful kind voice

  • shit, that actually did scare me

  • What an instable basement... oO two shots and ev'rything is destroyed.

  • @LacrimosaElodia The catacombs are hundreds of years old and massively eroded by water leakage from the Paris sewers and vibrations from the opera house....of course it's unstable. Duh.

  • i like though how in the 2004 version the mask was hot and looked good but in all the others its ugly!

  • @ponyfrk his mask isnt supposed to be "hot"

  • @ponyfrk This 1943 version has, by far, the most beautiful mask design....period.

  • "The whole place is caving in." "The shots must have started it." No poop, Sherlock. :D

  • Awful movie, from the begining to end. Lon Chaney was far superior... even Hammer films do it better. It is so absurd, so boring... AND NOT FAITHFULL AT ALL TO THE FREAKIN BOOK!!

  • @Kikefriki No film version has ever been faithful to Leroux's book, because the book was bad. Leroux had wonderful ideas, but woefully little talent. The Chaney version was superior only because of Chaney. The Hammer version, aside from the brilliant Herbert Lom and a typically excellent technical production, is an almost total failure. This version has a flawed script, but Claude Rains and a gorgeous score and production more than make up for it.

  • @Nemesis7293 The book is not genius, but it is not bad either. This version is BAD AS HELL, not only as an adaptation but as an stand-alone movie aswell. The Hammer version at least HAVE a good "phantom" and the plot only fails in the third act. The 1943 is a bad musica-comedy with the worst villain EVER (I love Claude Rains but, frankly, he is awful in this one) and almost 0 action.

  • what is the name of the song he plays?

  • Wow, the last time I saw this I was like 6 (about 10 years ago) and I remember not being able to watch the bit where she pulled his mask off because I was so scared of it. I've just watched it for the first time since then, wasn't as scary as I remember it. But great anyway :D

  • look at ur lake christine

    motherfucker that's the sewage

    i dont kno what lake ur seeing

  • it is beautiful...

  • if he is phantom of the opera,i would rather choose raoul..

    in 2004 version,erik is hot!

  • @genesisgerios924 Well the Phantom is not supposed to be hot, his looks is supposed to be repulsive.. There's a reason he's hiding down beneath the operahouse.

  • This version is absolutely ridiculous. The Phantom is so out of character and his face doesn't even look that bad. AND WHAT'S WITH HIS ENTIRE LAIR COLLAPSING? Is he to just die alone, beneath the rubble, as Christine, without a care in the world, runs into the arms of Raoul?

  • she has a very nice voice but this movie sucks

  • @Barbiebratzgal123 she looks terrified when she is with erik...2004 version is much better..

  • 5:01-5:20 is amazing, I used to watch this on my VSH tape over and over again just to hear that song.

  • Claude Rains remains my favorite actor of all time and people who hate on this movie need to shut up. They hate on it because it is different which isnt a good reason at all. This is tied for my favorite version of the phantom. And I have seen EVERY single Phantom of the Opera release ever made. The play (seen it twice), even the 1962 version. I also own every Phantom of the Opera version on tape. This movie is wonderful if only because Claude Rains is epic.

  • The musical is nothing like the original work. If you want to see the best version, check out the 1925 silent. It is one of a kind. This 1943 version was stagey and overblown, but Claude Rains performance was superb. He saved the film from being a dismal failure.

  • Women of those ages were supremacy females. Just look at her-perfect human.

    Masterbreed.

    Today's skeletons stand no chance.

  • Lon Chaney and Claude Rains are both brilliant in different ways. I don't think it's possible to compare the two. Gerard Butler's portrayal is also great. As for endings, I like the 2004 ending best, because it has the most heart. I heard that Lon Chaney hated the ending to the 1925 version, because it strayed too far from the book, but his death scene was brilliant anyway. This ending just seemed weak.

  • You mean the Musical is not like this film at all...actually this film is not like the original 1925 silent version at all which is by far the best version of the book. The production value in this one is lovely though.

  • Woah that lady at :53 needs to take it down a few decibals.

  • im not crazy about the WHOLE movie but i like this ending

  • Amazing i love all versions from lon chaney to love never dies image they put all versions in on film that would be fun

  • Yeah, Claude is the BEST PHANTOM EVER! Although I do like Gerard quite a bit, Rains had such a classy magic to his role as the Phantom.

  • Claude Rains was an incredibly powerful actor. This was a great remake, in fact all the versions, especially the'62 version, have wonderful takes on the original storyline. It always plays like a true greek tragedy. Thanks so much for posting this!

  • ew dadadada is that all

  • Freaky.

  • Rains looks a little young with the phantom mask on and a little old without it

  • no, this is the proper portrayal of the concept. Why do you think there are so many nameless faceless porn stars running around never doing porn?

  • that was so stupid. its not likle the musical at all and the 2004 version is much better.

  • @monkeylover22301 that is an opinion worthy of your name ;)

  • @monkeylover22301 yeah jeez guy, i know its WAY different from Andrew Lloyd Webbers', but be a LITTLE OPEN-MINDED....ya punkass...

  • @monkeylover22301 It's not supposed to be like the musical, you....stupid. The 2004 adaption was retched, Gerard Butler was a dreadful Phantom

  • @monkeylover22301

    The musical didn't come out until the 80's. Every adaptation prior to it was more off the book than the musical. Besides the 2004 version was an awful adaptation. The phantom's face was hardly deformed, the actors couldn't sing half as well as the people in the musical, and they never went into the dangerous side of Erik as much. He should be pitiful and scary. Granted this isn't the best or most accurate version of the story (try the Lon Chaney one for that) but it's okay.

  • @monkeylover22301 So there is the Musical version and a lot of movie versions... and the book. Read it and you'll have another view. :)

  • @monkeylover22301 yeah and the Phantoms younger and much hotter  thise phantom is ok but hes like a kindly old grandpa lol

  • @freacls Do you even speak English?